Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11
review-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-04-03-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2025-04-09 | |
Requested | 2025-03-21 | |
Requested by | Carlos Pignataro | |
Authors | Joseph A. Salowey , Sean Turner | |
I-D last updated | 2025-04-11 (Latest revision 2025-04-11) | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11
by Benjamin M. Schwartz
(diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Giuseppe Fioccola |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/i_t1EONCJ5qD5bCl7CutFRmFmoc | |
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2025-04-03 |
review-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-04-03-00
This document updates the changes in RFC 8447 and requests IANA to make changes to a number of TLS and DTLS registries. In particular, it updates the "Recommended" column in TLS registries by defining a third value "D" for items that are discouraged and adds a "Comment" column to the registries that do not already have it. This document updates several RFCs: RFC 3749, RFC 5077, RFC 4680, RFC 5246, RFC 5705, RFC 5878, RFC 6520, RFC 7301, and RFC 8447. I think that the document has a well defined scope and is quite clear. However, I have few suggestions: - In the Abstract, I suggest to replace 'adds a Comments column to all active registries' with 'adds a Comment column to all the registries that do not already have it'. - In section 3, I suggest to replace 'The permitted values are' with 'The permitted values of the Recommended column are', just to avoid any confusion. - In the sections from 4 to 14, I suggest to add some explanation on why specific registries are changed to discouraged. Some insight would help the reader. - I would also add some observations on the operational and interoperability impacts, if any, of the changes proposed in the document. - Currently, the section on "IANA Considerations" simply says that the document is entirely about changes to TLS-related IANA registries, as per RFC 8447. Instead, I would put all the relevant sections on IANA requests (i.e. sections from 4 to 14) under an "IANA Considerations" section. In this way you can avoid the IANA section with no content.